(October 16, 2017 at 10:13 am)AFTT47 Wrote:

(October 16, 2017 at 4:48 am)Ignorant Wrote: Yes, if people are voluntarists and/or nominalists, then the dilemma you describe is more or less the problem. They have to deny the former, and try to make sense of the latter.

But if God's "commanding" goodness (moral or otherwise) for created agents is merely the same thing as God's creating those agents as having an end (i.e. a "fulfilled" nature), then there is not the dilemma described above.

Huh?

Went over my head too.  Does this mean God commands different degrees for his created agents, putting in excellence for some and vileness for others?

It's a common practice, confusing obfuscation for profundity. Using a barrage of words to say as little as possible, while assuming an illusion of great depth.

I'm not following the dilemma. A big tree hogs all the water with it's giant root system and snuffs out a couple small trees. We don't assign good/bad to that tree. That's just how trees work. Personally, that's how I view humans as well. Rape/genocide/helping eachother isn't good/bad in some grand sense, that's just how humans work.

I would think the argument with God, is that some non-existent value system has to be introduced. For religious, it's rooted in God's will. God says humans matter, and there's some convoluted point system. To which people say "Yeah but, how come blah blah blah..." To which I say "If there's some magical being overseeing the universe, everything we know about logic/reason/etc... goes out the window. Who the fuck knows what makes sense in that reality. But it doesn't matter, because there's not a magical being overseeing the universe."

I was trying to be as concise as possible.

God's "commanding" certain moral acts as good is no different than creating human agents AS human. It's like this:

If acting morally is the same thing as acting in ways that make you a GOOD human, then God "commanding" you to act morally is the same thing as saying that God "commands" you to act in ways that truly fulfill what he made you to be, i.e. human.

God "commands" that you be the best version of what-you-are. Only those acts which are morally good, by definition, can get you there. Creating you AS what-you-are is the same thing as creating you TO BE the best sort of what-you-are.

@Wallym
-which would simply be an affirmation of the second proposition.  

It doesn't actually matter if we use gods or men as the subject of the dilemma.  If things are good or bad by virtue declaration then things like rape and genocide could be virtuous, if they were declared to be so.

@Ignorant
You've completely failed to engage the dilemma, and because of this, could not have resolved it by anything you've said.

Does god command you to "be the best human you can be" because that would be good...

Or is it good to be "the best human you can be" because god commands you to be so?

In the case of the former, then the commander is not the author of goodness. In the case of the latter, if god commands rape or genocide......then it's good. The dilemma exists in that some people wish for their god to be the author of goodness..but simultaneously would not accept a command of rape or genocide -as- goodness...and yet......

(October 16, 2017 at 11:03 am)Ignorant Wrote: I was trying to be as concise as possible.

God's "commanding" certain moral acts as good is no different than creating human agents AS human. It's like this:

If acting morally is the same thing as acting in ways that make you a GOOD human, then God "commanding" you to act morally is the same thing as saying that God "commands" you to act in ways that truly fulfill what he made you to be, i.e. human.

God "commands" that you be the best version of what-you-are. Only those acts which are morally good, by definition, can get you there. Creating you AS what-you-are is the same thing as creating you TO BE the best sort of what-you-are.

But there are many aspects to "acting human", some we call morally good, some bad.  If no one else had a hand in our creation then isn't it correct to say that God commands the bad just as he commands the good?

Welcome back by the way.

(October 16, 2017 at 11:15 am)Whateverist Wrote:

(October 16, 2017 at 11:03 am)Ignorant Wrote: I was trying to be as concise as possible.

God's "commanding" certain moral acts as good is no different than creating human agents AS human. It's like this:

If acting morally is the same thing as acting in ways that make you a GOOD human, then God "commanding" you to act morally is the same thing as saying that God "commands" you to act in ways that truly fulfill what he made you to be, i.e. human.

God "commands" that you be the best version of what-you-are. Only those acts which are morally good, by definition, can get you there. Creating you AS what-you-are is the same thing as creating you TO BE the best sort of what-you-are.

But there are many aspects to "acting human", some we call morally good, some bad.  If no one else had a hand in our creation then isn't it correct to say that God commands the bad just as he commands the good?

Welcome back by the way.

Isn't that where free will comes in?  It doesn't make sense in our reality, but, again, in a crazy alternate reality that includes all powerful beings, who knows.

(October 13, 2017 at 7:10 pm)Hammy Wrote: I always find it amusing when theists respond by saying it's a false dilemma because God *is* goodness... and yet they fail to acknowledge how that completely fails to address the fact that God is still completely redundant because goodness is all you need. And they also completely fail to explain how such a shitty God=goodness too of course. They merely redefine goodness to be "whatever God says or does" even when what God says and does in the Bible is morally repugnant and very very not good.

You really don't have a clue, do you? Read some Plotinus and get back to us.

As for Ignorant's comments, he is correct in so much as one adopts the essentialist position and deny the nominalist one. It means something to be human and to be good is to act in accordance with one's created nature. Those of you who are trying to maintain the dilemma seem to be unaware that doing so is incompatible with inalienable human rights.

(October 16, 2017 at 11:25 am)wallym Wrote:

(October 16, 2017 at 11:15 am)Whateverist Wrote: But there are many aspects to "acting human", some we call morally good, some bad.  If no one else had a hand in our creation then isn't it correct to say that God commands the bad just as he commands the good?

Welcome back by the way.

Isn't that where free will comes in?  It doesn't make sense in our reality, but, again, in a crazy alternate reality that includes all powerful beings, who knows.

Yeah, you'd have about a 50/50 chance of being right.  The answer is usually either free will or strange and wonderful ways.

Easily the silliest attempt at a bait and switch I've ever seen, Neo. Like the subject of free will, the subject of inalienable rights has absolutely no bearing on the resolution to the dilemma, further...so what? So what if the maintenance of dilemma actually was incompatible with inalienable rights? That would scrap inalienable rights, not rescue your god from the dilemma.